= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Sheaman3773 comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 7 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (495)
My first thought when I finally figured out that the metal was about mundane armor and not something crazy like transfiguring muscles was 'why don't Aurors wear impressive clanking armor, then?'
It says early in the chapter, when Harry and Neville are alone, that this didn't count as giving Voldemort a good idea b/c the armor would only stop minor jinxes.
But this is for the crappy armor that first years can both build in a short period and also wear. A full grown adult with governmental resources ought to be able to obtain and wear much better armor.
Given the problem Aurors seem to have with surprise attacks, that alone might make them worthwhile!
(In the real world, no one says bulletproof vests can stop only weaker bullets and don't do anything about explosions or knives, so there's no point in equipping soldiers or cops with such vests...)
On the other hand, its not a new idea. Harry mentions that some wizards used to wear armour in the dark ages, and they probably wouldn't have stopped using it if it was useful.
In Eliezer's HPverse, that may be a sensible argument. (Given the general irrationality of wizard-dom, not a very strong one, though.) I'm criticizing Eliezer for diverging from canon, which IIRC has no suggestion that armor would be useful or had been tried but abandoned in the past. (The only example I can think of is maybe canon had goblin armor, and I'm not sure how that would apply.)
Canon already suggests spells can be stopped by solid objects, but only if they're sufficiently solid. And powerful spells have been shown to blast objects, while weak spells haven't. It's not much of a leap. In HP canon, historical wizards may or may not have worn armor of some sort, but for an adult wizard, armor is probably more trouble than it's worth. Considering how versatile a properly trained wizard can be in combat, it shouldn't be able to do more than force the opponents to slightly revise their tactics, while increasing the wearer's fatigue.
Remember that these are first years. The difference between the quality of armor they and the government can procure is much smaller than the difference between their combat ability and those of aurors or Death Eaters. If they didn't have such a demanding teacher, they would probably be incapable of anything resembling proper dueling at this point.
It could be that in order to get it to the strength that it will stand up to adult hexes, the armor becomes too cumbersome to actually use.
This is true, but in the real world, cops face bullets somewhere around as often as knives (I believe; does anyone know differently?) and far more often than explosions--Dark Wizards, on the other hand, don't go around offensively using first-year spells...basically ever.
Isn't that a rather convenient outcome, though? Why should we think that?
Hence the point that we would expect adults with government resources to be able to wear both heavier armor and much better armor for a net protective effect far beyond what Harry et al managed.
Because if that weren't the case, we might expect aurors to wear armor, and they don't. A hypothesis that suggests that armor isn't useful for adult wizards predicts our observations better than one that suggests that it is.
One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens; we can use the observed lack in canon to argue for Eliezer conflicting with canon or we can use it to argue canon invisibly agrees with Eliezer.
General rule of fiction. If there are two possibilities, neither of which is confirmed or denied in text, assume the one that makes sense.
OK. So to use an earlier Yudkowsky example, what possibility about arbitrage should we assume holds true in canon? That there's some clever witchery which makes it impossible or that Rowling simply made a mistake and didn't think about the economics?
If we assume perfection on the part of the author, doesn't that lead to an odd and desperate kind of rabbinical midrash?
I assume both: Rowling never thought of it, but if it were brought to her attention (and she considered it worth bothering about), she would probably declare that the Goblins had some clever witchery (or goblinery) that makes it impossible. So I proactively make that assumption for her, while still doubting that she ever thought of it.
One could assume that wizards never thought of it.
I'll grant that sometimes author's do just not think of things. However, if there is a perfectly good explanation then I see no reason to throw away my enjoyment of the story by ignoring it.